Basement Modeling

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

6.2.

8 Modeling Approaches for Common Design Situations


Modeling approaches vary depending on the configuration of the building,
the presence of a basement, and the level of the supporting grade.

Embedded Buildings
Figure 6-1 illustrates a common situation of a building with a basement that
is surrounded by soil with a level grade on all sides. Several potential
modeling
strategies that can be used to analyze such a building are shown in Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-1 Illustration of an embedded building configuration with a


basement
surrounded by soil and a level grade on all sides.
Figure 6-2 Modeling approaches for embedded foundations.

Of the modeling approaches illustrated in Figure 6-2, there was no consensus


on the best approach, or even the most common approach in design practice.
Observations
include the following:
Model 1.
In this approach, the building is assumed to be fixed at the ground
level, and no SSI effects are considered. Reactions are calculated at the base
of the model at grade, and then applied to the foundation in a separate model.
This approach is used occasionally by some engineers, and frequently by
others.
Some believe this model is more appropriate for moment frame and braced
frame buildings, and less appropriate for shear wall buildings. Others would
only use this model if there were no “back-stay effects.” Back-stay effects
occur when the lateral system of the superstructure does not align with the
full footprint of the foundation. An example of such a configuration is a
superstructure with a concrete shear wall core system founded on a wider
basement podium structure with perimeter walls. Backstay effects involve the
transfer of lateral forces in the superstructure into additional elements that
exist within the basement, typically through one or more floor diaphragms.
This force transfer helps tall buildings resist overturning effects, and is
referred to as the backstay effect because of its similarity to the back-span of
a cantilever beam. The added stiffness of the retaining walls, and the relative
rigidity of the walls and diaphragms comprising the basement, can lead to
larger shear forces in the basement levels than in the superstructure.
Modeling of the in-plane flexibility of the basement diaphragms can provide
more rational results for this effect. When the lateral force-resisting system of
the superstructure covers the full footprint of the basement, the backstay
effect is reduced or eliminated.

Model 2.
In this approach, the soil on the sides of the retaining walls is ignored,
but the basement structure is explicitly included in the model. The lowest
basement level is taken as the base of the model. It is argued that the amount
of movement required to develop passive pressure of any significance far
exceeds the amount of movement anticipated in the basement retaining walls,
so the retained earth can be conservatively ignored. One variation of this
model (Model 2A) has a fixed base. A second variation of this model (Model
2B) has vertical springs under the foundation. Model 2A is occasionally used,
though limited by some to the preliminary design phases of their projects.
Model 2B is used more frequently, though some use both Model 1 and Model
2B to bound their analyses for design.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy